Via Dave Barry, who says: "Do not click on the link unless you are prepared to view explicit images in which you can't really tell what the hell is going on..." And commenter insomniac nails it: "ahhh, sweet m.r.i. of life at last i've found you..."

LAST week, if you wanted to use the latest slang to tell a friend he was cool, you could have called him “Obama,” as in: “Dude, you’re rocking the new Pre phone? You are so Obama.”

This week? Best not to risk it.

Yeesh. If you risked it before, go ahead: risk it! You seem pretty un-risk-averse. Chez Althouse, we've been thinking it's amusing to say, whenever anything's not quite right: Why did Obama let that happen? Or just — with a tone of sad disappointment: Obama.

But anyway, "Obama" as an adjective for cool/hip? The point is that it didn't last:

The life of slang is now shorter than ever, say linguists, and what was once a reliable code for identifying members of an in-group or subculture is losing some of its magic.

The Internet “is robbing slang of a lot of its sociolinguistic exclusionary power,” said Robert A. Leonard, a linguistics professor at Hofstra in Hempstead, N.Y., whose slang credentials include being a founding member of the doo-wop group Sha Na Na, formed in the late 1960s. “If you are in a real inside group, you are manufacturing slang so that you can exclude the wannabes.”

And that becomes harder, he added, as the whole world has access to your language.

... whose slang credentials include being a founding member of the doo-wop group Sha Na Na... Ha ha. I like to think his linguistics scholarship focuses on the meaning of nonsense syllables in doo wop songs. (Because, really, WHO put the bomp?)

Nowadays, everyone can check Urban Dictionary. The exclusionary game is up.

No real definition for this word is possible at this time. Check back in 4 years by then a consensus by have formed. Each person projects his personal beliefs and values onto this word, and a standard meaning isn't possible at this time.

Hey, did it suddenly become hip and cool to be all clear-headed and rational?!

First, I wonder how many of the uninsured realize that the health care plan is going to require them to buy insurance. Anyway, the issue here is about the scope of Congress's commerce power. Lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey point out that the uninsured are not currently doing anything in the commercial/economic sphere. They are basically doing nothing — failing to provide for themselves. How can Congress regulate this nonaction?

The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact....

“Conservatives are always good at pushing that one concise message. The death panels are easy to tweet. The explanation for why there are no death panels and making that explanation takes much more explanation. You can’t do that on Twitter.”

So their ideas are sophisticated and fact-based, while their opponents throw around ideology and the fantasy that supports it. That's the politico's delusion, in a nutshell. But I've got to laugh at the way blogging now represents the in-depth development of ideas. I'm just too deep for Twitter. I'm a blogger. LOL.

The pseudoscientist ... can say whatever he wants. If compelling rhetoric would benefit from any given argument, he can always make that argument. Pseudosciences have typically been designed around compelling rhetorical arguments. The facts of science, on the other hand, rarely happen to coincide with the best possible logic argument. Having the facts on your side is not an advantage, it's a limitation; and it's a limitation that's very dangerous to the cause of science should you throw it onto the debate floor.

Here, look, this is a Corvette, being destroyed pursuant to government policy. I'm skipping ahead to the really destructive part:

The government, which took over General Motors, wants us to hate Corvettes?

Look at all that smoke! Does anyone care about actual pollution anymore? (As opposed to carbon dioxide.)

And look at all the waste! What about all the energy was used producing the car? That is being squandered now, on the theory that a new car will use less gas (assuming it's driven the same number of miles). And energy was used to manufacture the new car. Using old things longer — preserving things — is a way to decrease the consumption of fossil fuels that are used in production. I don't see how Cash for Clunkers factored in all the energy use that is involved in destroying one car and making another.

And it really pains me to see the destruction of something beautiful and good.

The tactics -- which one official described Friday as a threatened execution -- were used on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, according to the CIA's inspector general's report on the agency's interrogation program....

Three months before Nashiri's capture, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- Jay S. Bybee, now a federal judge -- advised the CIA in an August 2002 memo that threats of "imminent death" were not illegal unless they deliberately produced prolonged mental harm. Independent legal experts have called that interpretation too hedged and thus too lax....

A ... former U.S. official who has read the full, classified report said that it contained an entire section listing ways in which the CIA and contracted interrogators had "gone beyond what they were authorized to do -- a whole variety of deviations." The official said that what struck him most strongly was that the report suggested these techniques were "really not effective."

He said he concluded that "there has to be a better way to do this" but that the CIA resisted suggestions then that it should back away from the program. Asked why, the official said he could not say for sure, but he added that "maybe it was that if you change, then it means you were wrong" in pursuing the harsh interrogation methods in the first place.

"It" = the opposition to his running for (can't call it re-)election as NY governor. Why, if he was never chosen for governor in the first place, does he assume he should be more popular? And, of course, he can't possibly think that this complaint will increase his popularit. Is he giving up?

The new statutory scheme is being challenged by the Wisconsin Family Council on the ground that it violates the anti-same-sex marriage amendment that was added to the state constitution in 2006. Here is an earlier blog post on the case.

Governor Doyle — who just announced that he won't run for re-election — is predictably displeased.

We really are meant to take "The healing power of CATNIP" and "Feng Shui and Felines" seriously. And just ask your cat what title he'd like for an article about how he is shitting all over the house. I think it would be: "Outside the box."

ADDED: As you may notice — at the very bottom — this was at Whole Foods. It was, once again, teeming with people — all Republicans? In Madison? Well, I didn't see any Obama bumper stickers. I saw one "IMPEACH" sticker. So, I guess it's here. The Impeach Obama movement. But why? What grounds? Ineffectiveness isn't grounds. Claiming to be — or inadequate performance as — "God's partner"? Posing as a natural-born citizen? Who knows? I didn't get a chance to chat with the sticker sticker.

That's Paul Krugman. He's arguing that "progressives are now in revolt," that Obama took them for granted and needs to win their trust back. Obama also has a big problem with moderates. Basically, Obama has a big problem. He got lots of people to trust him, chiefly by doing exactly what Krugman now complains about: speaking in vague generalities. It only works from a distance.

Photograph. Just how "terminally ill" is that guy? He should be on a stretcher and have tubes attached if there was any reason for Scotland to show mercy on on the man who blew up 270 human beings. He doesn't look anywhere near close enough to dying. What kind of death panel decided he was dying?

"We have been in contact with the Scottish government indicating that we objected to it," President Barack Obama said of Thursday's release.

"We thought it was a mistake. We are now in contact with the Libyan government, and want to make sure that if in fact this transfer has taken place, he is not welcomed back in some way but instead should be under house arrest...."

Indicating that we objected... Let me indicate that I find Barack Obama infuriatingly bland. Has he ever showed passion (this purveyor of empathy) – has he ever showed staunch resolve in the war on terror?

The credibility of Barack Obama’s influence on the world is going to take at least as hard a knock. In the end, all the protests and all the diplomatic pressure from the White House counted for nothing. Scotland’s determination to return Megrahi to the bosom of his family and his homeland was not going to be blocked.

The rehabilitation of America’s standing in the world was going to be one of the great gains, if you remember, of the Obama election victory.... The President and his Secretary of State could do nothing - for all their administration’s supposed global prestige - to prevent what they considered to be an outrage. On yet another score, Mr Obama could not deliver the goods.

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Mr. Obama told a multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders who support his goal to remake the nation’s health care system.

Bearing false witness? Breaking the 9th Commandment? So his opponents are sinners. I'm trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.According to the lede paragraph in the linked NYT article:

President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.

Strangely, the context of that quote — "a core ethical and moral obligation" — is missing from the body of the article. Was something cut? Was it too embarrassing? Too Bush-y? I have to go elsewhere:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: OK, for some, that public option has gone over like a lead balloon. So how about plan B, morality? Is that the secret weapon strategy to get health care reform? President Obama went on a conference call today with thousands of religious people, arguing health care reform is a moral issue. The president also argued against what he calls "ludicrous lies" made up about his health plan.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Obama says believe. Believe or be condemned as sinners. And go forth into the world. Preach the good news. Speak the truth.

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Talk about the blue pill! Just wait until the government lays its hands on you. In Barack's name, you will get well.

Government as religion — it's a poisonous notion! But drink it, drink it. Believe! It will not hurt you at all!

Quite aside from what the 1000-page bill says, it's hard to figure out what Obama is talking about. He's pushing the bill, and yet he keeps saying the most disturbing things... as if he's breaking it to us gently.

"You want me to talk about it or do you want to yell?" he asked over and over when interrupted while trying to answer. Continued shouting brought a sterner rebuke.

"Disruption never helps your cause," he said more than once. "It just looks like you're afraid to have rational discussion."...

"What's the matter with you all?" he said. "I don't know if you get angrier when I answer the questions, or when you don't think I do."

Ha ha. I love hearing Frank voice his confusion about whether people are accepting his answers as serious efforts at fully answering the questions. He doesn't know if they hate his actual answers or if they know he's not really answering. I'm guessing he knows he's not fully answering, and he knows they hate his partial answers, and he's trying to calculate whether giving full answers would get a better result. On the one hand, they'd be full answers, but on the other hand, they'd be there presenting a big target for the crowd's contempt.

2. "The Colbert Report," #05108 with Barbara Boxer. (Haven't watched Colbert in a while. He's less funny pretending to hate Democrats than he was pretending to love Republicans.)

3. "Trapped Under a Boulder." (This one never gets old. Well, what would you do if you were out camping amongst the Australian boulders and you had to pee in the middle of the night? Watch for the crawfish cameo.)

I think most people's clothes don't fit. I'm always bewildered. I'm like, "Do people ever look at themselves in the three-way mirror? Like, did you see what your ass looks like?" Americans get hung up on the actual size tag.

Bob states a theory for the evolution of sex difference in that clip, but doesn't it depend on an incorrect assumption that sons inherit their characteristics from their fathers and daughters from their mothers?

I'm trying to think of other examples like "death panels." Proponents of a policy will naturally give it a positive-sounding — even euphemistic — name. Opponents make their rhetorical move with a label of their own. Help me think of some examples that parallel Sarah Palin's extremely effective "death panels." I'm especially interested in terms used by Bush opponents.

I'm also trying to think of the proper term for the opposite of a euphemism. I'm seeing dysphemism, malphemism, and cacophemism on line, but not in my "hard" dictionary. (What's the retronym for a good, authoritative dictionary in book form? I've been calling it my "hard dictionary," the way you'd say "hard line" for a non-cell telephone. And I've started using my hard dictionary more and more lately, because the internet seems to verify the existence of every word and meaning.)

For the opposite of euphemism, I'm going to use dysphemism, because I think dys- is the precise opposite of eu-. Proponents tend to name their policies euphemistically, so it's fair for opponents to counter with the opposite. Dysphemism suggests that an appropriate term has been chosen to balance the positive term used by the other side. I do like the word cacophemism, but it calls to mind cacophony which — to my ear — makes it seem as though the speaker is just making noise, trying to confuse things.

Yes, yes, I know. You — some of you — think Sarah Palin was trying to confuse things when she said "death panels." But that's not my point. My point is that it's an ordinary part of debate to put new — and inflammatory — labels on policies you are opposed to.

Well, then editor-in-chief must have thought he had something that fit in the place he calls The Moderate Voice.

The post was clearly identified as a Guest Voice and not a regular TMV contributor. Mr. Gandelman likes posting "Guest Voices" to stir the pot, if you will (Michael Reagan has been posted many times as a "Guest Voice").

To stir the pot, if you will... (What if I won't?) Stirring the pot is consistent with voice moderation? It's fine if "Mr. Gandelman" does whatever he likes, but I like saying when the name of a blog doesn't fit with what goes on under that name.... whether you will or not.

The Moderate Voice as [sic] many writers. Some conservative and some liberal. We don't hold writers [sic] feet to the fire but there have [sic] been a larger percentage of the liberal viewpoint rather than the conservative viewpoint recently. This is simply due to conservative writers not posting as much. So the site does tilt but it isn't an intentional thing. But that is regarding the regular writers, not "Guest Voices".

It's not my job to monitor your site, but my impression is that it leans left, as I think you are conceding. But I don't care about that. I was talking about moderation of the voice, and the way saying someone "shot his company in the face" is not a moderate way to speak.

In the future, if you could, please distinguish between "Guest Voices" and regular writers at The Moderate Voice?

No. If you put up a post, it's part of your blog. It's under the name "The Moderate Voice," and if I want to say a post on that blog is inconsistent with the name of the blog, I will say just that — and I'll give you a link. If you want some disclaimer, put it where you want on your blog, as big as you want it. I'm not cluttering my posts with hedging that doesn't mean anything to me. I linked. That's what I give you.

I think it would be beneficial to all bloggers to be very clear who they are agreeing or disagreeing with so their aren't any misunderstandings.

I'll be the judge of what's beneficial to me and my readers. If you don't want a writer associated with the name of your blog, don't let them post on your blog. The details of which writers you're vouching for and which are there to "stir the pot" are your business, not mine. I linked. That's the blogging ethic, in my view. My readers click on the link and can see what I'm talking about. If you haven't made it clear, you fix it.

The Enxit Group L.L.C. was created out of a group of ideas formulated at the virtual consortium SEMTAN Media in late 2005. The theme of Enxit was developed around a requirement to incorporate flexibility into a commerce model and endeavor which could identify and manage opportunities employing technological antecedents to improve efficiency. The Enxit Group is deigned to be facilitate PEST [political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological] antecedents which are rapidly integrating our global society, creating equity for all participants.

And I am deigned to be damned if I know what the hell you are talking about, but.... thank you very much and keep up the great writing!

Man, "conversation" has become one of those Orwellian words. There it is in Obama's NYT interview, where he's saying something that invites the relabeling that Sarah Palin so effectively slapped on it — "death panels."

It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Conversations! Damn! As if the government does not have power! Oh, but it's "not determinative," you say. It's just "some guidance." He said that, see? Ugh! Spare me! We're right to be afraid now, while the man is burbling about conversation. You know damned well he's about to say and now the time for conversation is over, and we must pass legislation. Before, he was all quick, shut up, it's an emergency, pass the legislation. People freaked, so then he deemed the period of freakage part of the conversation, and there, it has occurred, and now: shut up, pass the legislation. Oh, yeah, here it is, in today's NYT, an op-ed by Barack Obama:

Our nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them....

It's "debate" now, not "conversation," because the wrong people are doing the talking. The real conversation is what those people who aren't talking would say.

The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

Okay! Let's pick it all apart and examine everything. Have you read the great WSJ op-ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey? He had some serious ideas on some real issues, but wait, how dare he speak! How dare he get in the way of the Democrats' ramming legislation through Congress. The Democrats know what the millions upon millions of silent Americans really think, so he and those other loud voices need to quiet down, right? That's what I call conversation — when everyone shuts up and lets me give them what they'd say they want if only they weren't so silent.

Obama predictably insists that we do something now:

In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing....

Why isn't doing the wrong thing a lot scarier than doing nothing? Don't we need to be careful and get it right? If I say that, am I a "cynic" or a "naysayer"? And don't cynics and naysayers belong in the conversation too? Obama's answer is, apparently, no, they are not the real Americans. The real Americans are silent, and I represent what they think.

Obama's final fillip:

In the end, this isn’t about politics.

Oh, come on! But this post is already too long, and it's about the rhetorical use of "conversation." "This isn’t about politics" is at least as common and at least as disingenuous, but we'll have to have our conversation about this isn’t about politics some other day.

***

And yet, I must keep this postscript, while we're talking about "conversation":

I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation -- with you, with America. Because we all need to be part of the discussion... And let's definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care.... So let's talk. Let's chat. Let's start a dialogue about your ideas and mine.... So let the conversation begin. I have a feeling it's going to be very interesting....

Over the coming year I want to lead the American people in a great and unprecedented conversation about race... We have talked at each other and about each other for a long time. It's high time we all began talking with each other....

Yesterday Paul Krugman reminded us that preferring Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton because you wanted to avoid the Clinton psychodrama of the 90s was always a vain hope. Back in early 2008 he wrote, "Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false." Ezra Klein, chatting online about town hall hysteria, added, "This is how the conservative movement organizes against major pieces of liberal legislation. It's not about a particular moment or leader."

This is unquestionably true, but I'd just like to add one thing. If Hillary Clinton had won last year's Democratic primary and gone on to become president, and then this year's town hall meeting had turned into insane gatherings of lunatics yelling about death panels, every single pundit in Washington — Every. Single. One. — would be blaming it on her. Their unanimous take would be: Democrats knew that she was a divisive figure and chose to put her in the White House anyway. It's hardly any wonder that conservatives have gone nuts, is it?

That narrative, as we now know, would have been 100% wrong. But that would have been the narrative anyway. Caveat lector.

This is all very interesting, but I'd just like to add one thing. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama presented himself as someone who could bring us into a new era of transcendence over partisan differences. There would be Hope and Change. Obama believed — and a lot of us believed — that he was a calm, reassuring figure whom we could all love and trust.

Hillary would have known better. She'd been through it all before. She wouldn't have thought she could could ease you and cool you and cease the pain*. She wouldn't have blithely assumed Americans would quietly accept the vast, complex restructuring of health care that the congressional Democrats dumped on us. Obama naively thought that he was enough, and the more-liberal-than-America Democrats imagined they could get by on the magic of our admiration for the charming new President, who would look even lovelier as he amassed glittering accomplishments. Wouldn't he be wonderful? Wouldn't America be wonderful to have elected such a fine man President?

He and they got all puffed up. I don't think Hillary would have let that happen. He was Hope. She was Experience. Experience would have been different.

Not recently. Long ago. Something just reminded me of it. The something was the observation that I'm especially amused by jokes that have to do with the size of things. Oh, I'll be completely specific. We were talking about the expression "postage stamp lawn," that is, a very small lawn, perhaps the size of an area rug. But what if there really were a postage stamp the size of an area rug? That would be a huge postage stamp. Ha ha. Imagine the size of the envelope you'd put it on. Okay. That to me is hilarious, and it reminded me of the joke I found so funny — decades ago — that I laughed so hard the teller of the joke got mad at me for laughing so much. I was cutting the joker's hair — I used to think I could do haircuts and acted upon that belief — and I noticed a bright red dot on the top of his head — the size of a pimple, but not a pimple — and not something he'd ever have noticed. I said, "What's this red dot on top of your head?" He said, "That's my Santa Claus hat!"

Now, maybe the joker will read this post and get mad all over again. Or, that is, get mad for a new reason, that I've blogged about a time he got mad at me. To him, I'd say, I have remembered "That's my Santa Claus hat!" for more than 30 years, and — in my little sense of humor — I still think it's the funniest thing I've ever heard anyone say. It may not be the funniest joke I've ever heard, but I'm sure it's the funniest completely spontaneous remark I've ever been present to hear on the spot. On the dot.

In square meters — or "metres" — sorry. Here's a conversion engine. The average American new home is 2303 square feet, as compared to the smallest, belonging to our former rulers, the British, 818. Ouch.

But let me say that I love small houses, when they are laid out well. Still, that average British house is really small.